I believe that progressive taxation is supported primarily by those that are a product of class warfare. A flat tax is more logical, but the products of class warfare want the rich to suffer simply for being rich.

If people had logic they would realize that if we were all taxed, say 20% (for all intents and purposes), someone making 40 grand a year who gets taxed 8 grand would be akin to someone who makes 500 grand year and gets taxed 100 grand.

A potential response I see to your argument is that, quite simply, taxing a person making 40K 8K is NOT AT ALL the same as taxing someone making 500k and being taxed 100k. Proportionally by sheer numbers yes its the same, but if you want to look at the effect the tax has on each persons standard of living it isnt even close. The poorer person by far suffers more from the stolen income.

Of course the problem with that logic is where do we draw the line on progressive taxation?

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

At 2/9/2013 10:42:18 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:I believe that progressive taxation is supported primarily by those that are a product of class warfare. A flat tax is more logical, but the products of class warfare want the rich to suffer simply for being rich.

If people had logic they would realize that if we were all taxed, say 20% (for all intents and purposes), someone making 40 grand a year who gets taxed 8 grand would be akin to someone who makes 500 grand year and gets taxed 100 grand.

At 2/9/2013 10:52:43 AM, thett3 wrote:A potential response I see to your argument is that, quite simply, taxing a person making 40K 8K is NOT AT ALL the same as taxing someone making 500k and being taxed 100k. Proportionally by sheer numbers yes its the same, but if you want to look at the effect the tax has on each persons standard of living it isnt even close. The poorer person by far suffers more from the stolen income.

Of course the problem with that logic is where do we draw the line on progressive taxation?

I agree, but even though you are not intentionally doing it, your tendency to use class warfare to try to define policy is showing. The numbers are what is important, not the standard of living.

At 2/9/2013 10:52:43 AM, thett3 wrote:A potential response I see to your argument is that, quite simply, taxing a person making 40K 8K is NOT AT ALL the same as taxing someone making 500k and being taxed 100k. Proportionally by sheer numbers yes its the same, but if you want to look at the effect the tax has on each persons standard of living it isnt even close. The poorer person by far suffers more from the stolen income.

Of course the problem with that logic is where do we draw the line on progressive taxation?

^

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

At 2/9/2013 10:42:18 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:I believe that progressive taxation is supported primarily by those that are a product of class warfare. A flat tax is more logical, but the products of class warfare want the rich to suffer simply for being rich.

If people had logic they would realize that if we were all taxed, say 20% (for all intents and purposes), someone making 40 grand a year who gets taxed 8 grand would be akin to someone who makes 500 grand year and gets taxed 100 grand.

#Basic Math

One must solve another problem: deductions.

If you buy or donate to something/someone that is tax deductible, you are still giving back to the community and doing the gov'ts job for them, hence the deduction is only fair.

Regarding the title of this thread, class warfare exists regardless of the progressive tax. Capitalism pits the capitalist against the laborer in a battle in which the capitalist is destined to win.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

At 2/9/2013 10:52:43 AM, thett3 wrote:A potential response I see to your argument is that, quite simply, taxing a person making 40K 8K is NOT AT ALL the same as taxing someone making 500k and being taxed 100k. Proportionally by sheer numbers yes its the same, but if you want to look at the effect the tax has on each persons standard of living it isnt even close. The poorer person by far suffers more from the stolen income.

Of course the problem with that logic is where do we draw the line on progressive taxation?

I agree, but even though you are not intentionally doing it, your tendency to use class warfare to try to define policy is showing.

I'm a conservative/libertarian lol. I dont even support an income tax at all...I dont think I use class warfare rhetoric 0.0

The numbers are what is important, not the standard of living.

Says who exactly? The purpose of taxation isn't to reduce everyone's income by a certain amount, it's to provide the government with the money it needs to pursue it's ends. One of those ends is to maximize the standard of living for all citizens (at least, thats what the libs would argue, and I'm taking their position)

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

At 2/9/2013 10:52:43 AM, thett3 wrote:A potential response I see to your argument is that, quite simply, taxing a person making 40K 8K is NOT AT ALL the same as taxing someone making 500k and being taxed 100k. Proportionally by sheer numbers yes its the same, but if you want to look at the effect the tax has on each persons standard of living it isnt even close. The poorer person by far suffers more from the stolen income.

Of course the problem with that logic is where do we draw the line on progressive taxation?

^

How it personally effects this is not my business and not relevant, numbers are what matters, the government is a body that provides services for the people, it is not a bleeding heart amigo.

At 2/9/2013 10:52:43 AM, thett3 wrote:A potential response I see to your argument is that, quite simply, taxing a person making 40K 8K is NOT AT ALL the same as taxing someone making 500k and being taxed 100k. Proportionally by sheer numbers yes its the same, but if you want to look at the effect the tax has on each persons standard of living it isnt even close. The poorer person by far suffers more from the stolen income.

Of course the problem with that logic is where do we draw the line on progressive taxation?

I agree, but even though you are not intentionally doing it, your tendency to use class warfare to try to define policy is showing.

I'm a conservative/libertarian lol. I dont even support an income tax at all...I dont think I use class warfare rhetoric 0.0

The numbers are what is important, not the standard of living.

Says who exactly? The purpose of taxation isn't to reduce everyone's income by a certain amount, it's to provide the government with the money it needs to pursue it's ends. One of those ends is to maximize the standard of living for all citizens (at least, thats what the libs would argue, and I'm taking their position)

See my post below, the gov't is a service provider, not a bleeding heart, : P

At 2/9/2013 10:52:43 AM, thett3 wrote:A potential response I see to your argument is that, quite simply, taxing a person making 40K 8K is NOT AT ALL the same as taxing someone making 500k and being taxed 100k. Proportionally by sheer numbers yes its the same, but if you want to look at the effect the tax has on each persons standard of living it isnt even close. The poorer person by far suffers more from the stolen income.

Of course the problem with that logic is where do we draw the line on progressive taxation?

I agree, but even though you are not intentionally doing it, your tendency to use class warfare to try to define policy is showing.

I'm a conservative/libertarian lol. I dont even support an income tax at all...I dont think I use class warfare rhetoric 0.0

The numbers are what is important, not the standard of living.

Says who exactly? The purpose of taxation isn't to reduce everyone's income by a certain amount, it's to provide the government with the money it needs to pursue it's ends. One of those ends is to maximize the standard of living for all citizens (at least, thats what the libs would argue, and I'm taking their position)

See my post below, the gov't is a service provider, not a bleeding heart, : P

And what would you say the purpose of providing the services ultimately is?

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

At 2/9/2013 10:52:43 AM, thett3 wrote:A potential response I see to your argument is that, quite simply, taxing a person making 40K 8K is NOT AT ALL the same as taxing someone making 500k and being taxed 100k. Proportionally by sheer numbers yes its the same, but if you want to look at the effect the tax has on each persons standard of living it isnt even close. The poorer person by far suffers more from the stolen income.

Of course the problem with that logic is where do we draw the line on progressive taxation?

I agree, but even though you are not intentionally doing it, your tendency to use class warfare to try to define policy is showing.

I'm a conservative/libertarian lol. I dont even support an income tax at all...I dont think I use class warfare rhetoric 0.0

The numbers are what is important, not the standard of living.

Says who exactly? The purpose of taxation isn't to reduce everyone's income by a certain amount, it's to provide the government with the money it needs to pursue it's ends. One of those ends is to maximize the standard of living for all citizens (at least, thats what the libs would argue, and I'm taking their position)

See my post below, the gov't is a service provider, not a bleeding heart, : P

And what would you say the purpose of providing the services ultimately is?

The gov't provides the services because they can do so more efficiently than a private corporation/enterprise.

At 2/9/2013 10:42:18 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:I believe that progressive taxation is supported primarily by those that are a product of class warfare. A flat tax is more logical, but the products of class warfare want the rich to suffer simply for being rich.

If people had logic they would realize that if we were all taxed, say 20% (for all intents and purposes), someone making 40 grand a year who gets taxed 8 grand would be akin to someone who makes 500 grand year and gets taxed 100 grand.

#Basic Math

One must solve another problem: deductions.

If you buy or donate to something/someone that is tax deductible, you are still giving back to the community and doing the gov'ts job for them, hence the deduction is only fair.

Mortgage interest deduction? Sorry bro, any talk about the tax system is going to turn into an ungodly mess. :D

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

At 2/9/2013 10:42:18 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:I believe that progressive taxation is supported primarily by those that are a product of class warfare. A flat tax is more logical, but the products of class warfare want the rich to suffer simply for being rich.

If people had logic they would realize that if we were all taxed, say 20% (for all intents and purposes), someone making 40 grand a year who gets taxed 8 grand would be akin to someone who makes 500 grand year and gets taxed 100 grand.

#Basic Math

One must solve another problem: deductions.

If you buy or donate to something/someone that is tax deductible, you are still giving back to the community and doing the gov'ts job for them, hence the deduction is only fair.

Mortgage interest deduction? Sorry bro, any talk about the tax system is going to turn into an ungodly mess. :D

A service of the gov't is to spur investment and invest in the economy, that is what they are doing with this deduction.

At 2/9/2013 10:52:43 AM, thett3 wrote:A potential response I see to your argument is that, quite simply, taxing a person making 40K 8K is NOT AT ALL the same as taxing someone making 500k and being taxed 100k. Proportionally by sheer numbers yes its the same, but if you want to look at the effect the tax has on each persons standard of living it isnt even close. The poorer person by far suffers more from the stolen income.

Of course the problem with that logic is where do we draw the line on progressive taxation?

I agree, but even though you are not intentionally doing it, your tendency to use class warfare to try to define policy is showing.

I'm a conservative/libertarian lol. I dont even support an income tax at all...I dont think I use class warfare rhetoric 0.0

The numbers are what is important, not the standard of living.

Says who exactly? The purpose of taxation isn't to reduce everyone's income by a certain amount, it's to provide the government with the money it needs to pursue it's ends. One of those ends is to maximize the standard of living for all citizens (at least, thats what the libs would argue, and I'm taking their position)

See my post below, the gov't is a service provider, not a bleeding heart, : P

And what would you say the purpose of providing the services ultimately is?

The gov't provides the services because they can do so more efficiently than a private corporation/enterprise.

Define efficient. Does efficient specifically refer to cost (because in that case its unlikely theres anything the gov can do more efficiently) or overall effect?

They don't do it to be nice or because they have a bleeding heart.

k, but if actions like a flat tax harm their achievement of these ends then they shouldn't do them.

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

At 2/9/2013 10:52:43 AM, thett3 wrote:A potential response I see to your argument is that, quite simply, taxing a person making 40K 8K is NOT AT ALL the same as taxing someone making 500k and being taxed 100k. Proportionally by sheer numbers yes its the same, but if you want to look at the effect the tax has on each persons standard of living it isnt even close. The poorer person by far suffers more from the stolen income.

Of course the problem with that logic is where do we draw the line on progressive taxation?

I agree, but even though you are not intentionally doing it, your tendency to use class warfare to try to define policy is showing.

I'm a conservative/libertarian lol. I dont even support an income tax at all...I dont think I use class warfare rhetoric 0.0

The numbers are what is important, not the standard of living.

Says who exactly? The purpose of taxation isn't to reduce everyone's income by a certain amount, it's to provide the government with the money it needs to pursue it's ends. One of those ends is to maximize the standard of living for all citizens (at least, thats what the libs would argue, and I'm taking their position)

See my post below, the gov't is a service provider, not a bleeding heart, : P

And what would you say the purpose of providing the services ultimately is?

The gov't provides the services because they can do so more efficiently than a private corporation/enterprise.

Define efficient. Does efficient specifically refer to cost (because in that case its unlikely theres anything the gov can do more efficiently) or overall effect?

They don't do it to be nice or because they have a bleeding heart.

k, but if actions like a flat tax harm their achievement of these ends then they shouldn't do them.

Don't get what you mean, the gov't should not be a bleeding heart.

In theory the gov't is more cost effective, because they only need to pay overhead to operate and do not need to generate a profit, this has been contradicted and flawed every now and then, but it usually works.

At 2/9/2013 10:52:43 AM, thett3 wrote:A potential response I see to your argument is that, quite simply, taxing a person making 40K 8K is NOT AT ALL the same as taxing someone making 500k and being taxed 100k. Proportionally by sheer numbers yes its the same, but if you want to look at the effect the tax has on each persons standard of living it isnt even close. The poorer person by far suffers more from the stolen income.

Of course the problem with that logic is where do we draw the line on progressive taxation?

I agree, but even though you are not intentionally doing it, your tendency to use class warfare to try to define policy is showing.

I'm a conservative/libertarian lol. I dont even support an income tax at all...I dont think I use class warfare rhetoric 0.0

The numbers are what is important, not the standard of living.

Says who exactly? The purpose of taxation isn't to reduce everyone's income by a certain amount, it's to provide the government with the money it needs to pursue it's ends. One of those ends is to maximize the standard of living for all citizens (at least, thats what the libs would argue, and I'm taking their position)

See my post below, the gov't is a service provider, not a bleeding heart, : P

And what would you say the purpose of providing the services ultimately is?

The gov't provides the services because they can do so more efficiently than a private corporation/enterprise.

Define efficient. Does efficient specifically refer to cost (because in that case its unlikely theres anything the gov can do more efficiently) or overall effect?

They don't do it to be nice or because they have a bleeding heart.

k, but if actions like a flat tax harm their achievement of these ends then they shouldn't do them.

Don't get what you mean, the gov't should not be a bleeding heart.

In theory the gov't is more cost effective, because they only need to pay overhead to operate and do not need to generate a profit, this has been contradicted and flawed every now and then, but it usually works.

At 2/9/2013 10:42:18 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:I believe that progressive taxation is supported primarily by those that are a product of class warfare. A flat tax is more logical, but the products of class warfare want the rich to suffer simply for being rich.

If people had logic they would realize that if we were all taxed, say 20% (for all intents and purposes), someone making 40 grand a year who gets taxed 8 grand would be akin to someone who makes 500 grand year and gets taxed 100 grand.

#Basic Math

One must solve another problem: deductions.

If you buy or donate to something/someone that is tax deductible, you are still giving back to the community and doing the gov'ts job for them, hence the deduction is only fair.

Mortgage interest deduction? Sorry bro, any talk about the tax system is going to turn into an ungodly mess. :D

A service of the gov't is to spur investment and invest in the economy, that is what they are doing with this deduction.

WHOA BUDDY. This is a hallmark of the PRIVATE SECTOR. Government investment invariably leads to inefficiencies.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

That's an assertion. You say the government should do certain things with no warrant so why cant other people? Where do we draw the line?

In theory the gov't is more cost effective, because they only need to pay overhead to operate and do not need to generate a profit, this has been contradicted and flawed every now and then, but it usually works.

(i.e, Maintenance of highways and roads, education, etc.)

You arent answering the question. Does efficiency refer just to cost effectiveness, or the ability of the service to maximize over all utility?

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

At 2/9/2013 10:42:18 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:I believe that progressive taxation is supported primarily by those that are a product of class warfare. A flat tax is more logical, but the products of class warfare want the rich to suffer simply for being rich.

If people had logic they would realize that if we were all taxed, say 20% (for all intents and purposes), someone making 40 grand a year who gets taxed 8 grand would be akin to someone who makes 500 grand year and gets taxed 100 grand.

#Basic Math

One must solve another problem: deductions.

If you buy or donate to something/someone that is tax deductible, you are still giving back to the community and doing the gov'ts job for them, hence the deduction is only fair.

Mortgage interest deduction? Sorry bro, any talk about the tax system is going to turn into an ungodly mess. :D

A service of the gov't is to spur investment and invest in the economy, that is what they are doing with this deduction.

WHOA BUDDY. This is a hallmark of the PRIVATE SECTOR. Government investment invariably leads to inefficiencies.

No, want to know why the sudden hype about fuel efficient cars has started to occur in the last 5-6 years?

A. Gas Prices (of course)B. One of the first things Obama did (and the only good thing), was to force all major car manufacturers to have cars on the market that could do 50 MPG by 2020, for under 60 grand.

At 2/9/2013 10:42:18 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:I believe that progressive taxation is supported primarily by those that are a product of class warfare. A flat tax is more logical, but the products of class warfare want the rich to suffer simply for being rich.

If people had logic they would realize that if we were all taxed, say 20% (for all intents and purposes), someone making 40 grand a year who gets taxed 8 grand would be akin to someone who makes 500 grand year and gets taxed 100 grand.

#Basic Math

One must solve another problem: deductions.

If you buy or donate to something/someone that is tax deductible, you are still giving back to the community and doing the gov'ts job for them, hence the deduction is only fair.

Mortgage interest deduction? Sorry bro, any talk about the tax system is going to turn into an ungodly mess. :D

A service of the gov't is to spur investment and invest in the economy, that is what they are doing with this deduction.

WHOA BUDDY. This is a hallmark of the PRIVATE SECTOR. Government investment invariably leads to inefficiencies.

No, want to know why the sudden hype about fuel efficient cars has started to occur in the last 5-6 years?

A. Gas Prices (of course)B. One of the first things Obama did (and the only good thing), was to force all major car manufacturers to have cars on the market that could do 50 MPG by 2020, for under 60 grand.

This is a PRIVATE SECTOR INITIATIVE, spurred by a government mandate, NOT GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

That's an assertion. You say the government should do certain things with no warrant so why cant other people? Where do we draw the line?

The gov't shouldn't be a bleeding heart because they have no right to define what is moral and what is not, this is a republic, they answer to the people, not their own moral convictions.

In theory the gov't is more cost effective, because they only need to pay overhead to operate and do not need to generate a profit, this has been contradicted and flawed every now and then, but it usually works.

(i.e, Maintenance of highways and roads, education, etc.)

: You arent answering the question. Does efficiency refer just to cost effectiveness, or the ability of the service to maximize over all utility?

That's an assertion. You say the government should do certain things with no warrant so why cant other people? Where do we draw the line?

The gov't shouldn't be a bleeding heart because they have no right to define what is moral and what is not, this is a republic, they answer to the people, not their own moral convictions.

"The American public overwhelmingly favors raising taxes on the rich as a way to pay down the deficit, while opposing a hike in the Medicare eligibility age or eliminating tax deductions, according to a poll released Wednesday.Six-in-10 Americans support raising the marginal tax rate on income above $250,000" http://www.politico.com...

Americans also overwhelmingly favor "bleeding heart" things such as welfare and social security. I can find othr polls if you want. If you're just going to appeal to the will of the people instead of some over-arching moral principle well...you lose

In theory the gov't is more cost effective, because they only need to pay overhead to operate and do not need to generate a profit, this has been contradicted and flawed every now and then, but it usually works.

(i.e, Maintenance of highways and roads, education, etc.)

: You arent answering the question. Does efficiency refer just to cost effectiveness, or the ability of the service to maximize over all utility?

Both

Sooo then if government policies (like a flat tax) hinder the goals of those services, they ought not be implemented, right?

Would you agree that part of the purpose of the government programs you support is to raise the standard of living for those it effects?

DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

That's an assertion. You say the government should do certain things with no warrant so why cant other people? Where do we draw the line?

In theory the gov't is more cost effective, because they only need to pay overhead to operate and do not need to generate a profit, this has been contradicted and flawed every now and then, but it usually works.

(i.e, Maintenance of highways and roads, education, etc.)

You arent answering the question. Does efficiency refer just to cost effectiveness, or the ability of the service to maximize over all utility?

This isn't even an argument about cost efficiency. Government overhead and operating costs are usually orders of magnitude above the private sector. The only time government investment should be involved in economic activity is when private actors would never do so, because the activity itself is simply not profitable. Building roads is an example of this...the private sector would only do so if it was able to place toll booths on every couple miles of road built, including the roads in your neighborhood.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

How about a flat tax of 20% with a cap of $10,000 on deductions. Problem solved!

"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush

At 2/9/2013 10:52:43 AM, thett3 wrote:A potential response I see to your argument is that, quite simply, taxing a person making 40K 8K is NOT AT ALL the same as taxing someone making 500k and being taxed 100k. Proportionally by sheer numbers yes its the same, but if you want to look at the effect the tax has on each persons standard of living it isnt even close. The poorer person by far suffers more from the stolen income.

Of course the problem with that logic is where do we draw the line on progressive taxation?

^

How it personally effects this is not my business and not relevant, numbers are what matters, the government is a body that provides services for the people, it is not a bleeding heart amigo.

life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. those are the services it is supposed to provide.

Only one group of people has ever thought that property trumps all other things in our entire nation's history - SLAVE OWNERS.

No. The practical reason for progressive taxation is that the state spends much more protecting the resources of the rich than that of the poor.

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."~ Adam Smith, the "Father of Capitalism"

I think that the idea that the rich should contribute more than the poor is valid, providing that the government isn't engaging in wealth distribution. Many important defenders of capitalism actually agree with this principle: Adam Smith was already pointed out, while even Ayn Rand proposed a non-aggression based tax where entities would have to pay the government a certain amount for each contractual agreement the government agreed to enforce. This would have put the tax burden almost entirely on the rich because, as others have acknowledged, the rich benefit overwhelmingly from a limited government which works to protect their property. The problem with our current system is that we don't have much of a limited government. The welfare cause has been abused beyond all belief to justify powers that do encourage class warfare, dependency, and corporate cronyism.

"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -